This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, I just thought that the BNP have 2 MEPs so would that not mean they fall into the High catergory anyway? If so, this means we can get rid of the exception listing. veganfishcake (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Signature added by Zangar.

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Politics of the United Kingdom will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in UK politics. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up - I have nominated Libertarian Party (UK) for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination)‎

doktorb _words^deeds 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Caldwell is listed in his article as having been MP for two Irish constituencies in the 18th century. I've raised a query about this at Talk:Benjamin Caldwell#Irish MP?. If anyone has more sources or some clarification they can give, that would be useful. Benea (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

hello, can someone tell me the correct way to calculate swings for local elections both all-in-one and by third elections please? Thanks, veganfishcake (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's even a very widely agreed method - this always seems to bring more argument than light. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been adding articles such as Chardlington (UK Parliament constituency) the supposed Gloucestershire constituency for which a Bernard james is MP. I'm not familiar with the area but finding nothing in media to back this up; someone care to check? AllyD (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoax, and I've deleted the articles. Seems to be related to this Twitter account, but there's definitely no such constituency. Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your input requested here on a category dealing with British/Irish/Scottish/etc Unionism. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism--KarlB (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This proposal relates to copyrights. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion about election article titles. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A new British politics portal has been created at Portal:British politics. Please assist in the maintenance of this portal! RGloucester (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone mind taking a look at United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme and George Osborne? The former appears to be aiming to discredit Osborne's economic policy and the latter is currently reading like a hatchet job. Notably, both use this image, which includes an apparently made-up GDP growth figure for Q1 2012 (we can tell that even if we don't know that the Q1 figure hasn't been released yet - it was added before Q1 was even over). I don't have time or knowledge to fix them, but it would be valuable to have some knowledgeable eyes on them from this WikiProject. Thanks, Kahastok talk 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Another neutrality check please at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. The page editors there keep on removing UKIP from the page even though the UKIP party is rated higher in opinion polls. Since that page is about opinion polls, it looks as if the editors of that page has either bias towards the Lib Dems party or a bias against the UKIP. Either way, that article is not neutral. Can someone please have a look at that please? Thank you. The joyous one (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the British Isles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:UK MPs 1801–1802, and Category:UK MPs 1910, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. The nominator intends the discussion to serve as a testcase for all 55 sub-categories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament.
If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that a large number of articles on MPs who were elected by all-women shortlists (perhaps all of them) contain the following text: X was selected to stand for Labour through an all-women shortlist.^[1][2] This method of selection was subsequently declared illegal in January 1996 as it breached sex discrimination laws.^[2] This identical text can be found in Anne Begg, Liz Blackman, Karen Buck, Maria Eagle, Fiona Mactaggart, Julie Morgan and at least two dozen others.

It is my view that containing this sentence in these articles is inherently POV and potentially raises WP:BLP issues, as it implies that these candidates are/were somehow not legitimately elected, or might not have been had an AWS not been used. Simply put, there is no need to undermine the legitimacy of these politicians by stating that all-women shortlists were declared illegal. It should be sufficient to say 'X was selected by all-women shortlist', and if the reader cares more about it they can read that article. I propose that the second sentence above be removed from all the biographies that contain it. Does anyone else have any comments? Robofish (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible; as you say, including the text like this does seem to suggest that the validity of their selection was thus put in doubt. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Rwendland (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested change. I had noticed this before, and had intended to raise it here, but never got round to it.

The current situation duplicates a lot of info, and conveys the impression that these MPs were somehow illegitimate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the POV text from the articles linked above, and will search for the others later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they are now all done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion - but it's good this was deleted as for a start all-women's shortlists were never made illegal (thought their legality was questioned) and have been used to select candidates who have contested seats. in several consituencies.^[3] Bavage (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've been attempting work on a table for election predictions. Further explanation is at Talk:Electoral Calculus#Predictions table. I searched and couldn't find anything similar, but maybe it already exists and I missed it. If developed, this may be useful elsewhere. I'll have a look again myself when I can get my head round it, but thought there could be some useful comments/input from people here. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this. As an encyclopaedia we provide information on what has actually happened, sourced to reliable sources. Predictions are WP:CRYSTAL, opinion poll results change continually. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting and relevant, and suspect others may do too. Clearly I'm not suggesting people log results from their personal use of the site (as noted in a comment in that section of the article). But if the site is referred to in connection with specific predictions in reliable sources, there's no reason I can see why such information shouldn't be included. WP:CRYSTAL states Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...] and including such information within the article on the actual website itself isn't undue. -- Trevj (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If the site is referenced by a reliable source for its prediction for a particular seat or seats, then it would be fine to mention that. I doubt that will occur frequently enough to make a template worthwhile. Predictions obtained from the site by Wikipedia editors aren't from "reliable, expert sources" or "recognized entities in a field". The predictions the site makes are so crudely worked out that the predictions are of little value, but that's neither here nor there - even if the predictions were amazingly accurate, it's not something we could include if no reliable sources use it. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I found Waveney Council election, 2012, did a few checks, and saw that it never happened: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waveney Council election, 2012.

I notice that Template:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 is almost full-populated. Editors may want to check whether any of the other elections listed there are similarly fictitious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are articles on individual wards. I've looked at a small sample and the references supplied suggest to me that the articles mostly don't meet WP:GNG. Has there ever been a discussion about this? Have there ever been any WP:AfD nominations?—A bit iffy (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This may give you some idea. A few users have had the idea of creating articles about council wards in (presumably) their own patch. If there is nothing significant about the ward, other than its relevance in council elections, it's not a good idea and likely will be deleted. I always thought a better idea, at least for the big cities, would be to create one article "Wards of Bristol" for example, then give a brief outline of each one, and provide links via an existing template to the election data. -- Sussexonian (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sussexonian, that clarifies things a lot. And I like the idea of "Wards of Bristol" etc. Actually, I think there ought to be a statement somewhere along the lines of "In general, wards are not notable" so that people don't pointlessly go starting such articles that will often just get deleted. What do you (and anyone else who might be interested) think?—A bit iffy (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I've recently created an article on New Labour (out of a recirect). It's still quite short, so I'm wondering if I could have any support in improving the article. So far, I've written a brief outline of the history of New Labour (though it is far from complete) - this is is the area I'd like particular help in: I'm sure there are people who know much more than me about the history, and who have access to a wider range of sources, who could help improve the history. I also hope to detail key figures, New Labour's political philosophy, critics, and electoral successes/failures. Feel free to jump in; if you think you could help, drop a message at my talk page. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already a huge amount of overlap between Labour Party (UK) (which has a New Labour section) and History of the British Labour Party (which has a New Labour section). Not sure there is a need for a third article covering the same ground. -- Sussexonian (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sussexonian, thanks for your comment. Someone asked a similar question at the article's talk page; I think my answer there covers the concerns you have. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested at Talk:England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 that there is no particular need to split this into individual pages as most will have little content other than the list of candidates/election result. I see there was an earlier discussion (archive 3 above) which mostly reached the same conclusion - at least unless there is a particularly notable occurrence in one area. Can I suggest any comments go on the article talk page. Sussexonian (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a currently a discussion at Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom#Lead section regarding the wording of part of the lead section. Any input is very much appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would be able to write an article about the whole City Deal thing. It's been used to get the Greater Bristol Metro scheme going, which falls in my area of interest, but I know nothing about the thing beyond "YAY TRAINS!!" -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User Boelyn has been editing constituency articles, of both current and historic constituencies, with red links to Members of Parliament, some of these Members going back centuries. The explanation for this is to encourage the creation of articles, although this does not appear to have been successful, and in anycase, editors can create articles whenever they like without 'tagging' by someone else. In addition, Boelyn has been adding "Please wikify" tags en masse to hundreds if not thousands of constituency articles with a similar mindset of 'encouraging' editors to follow them behind.

My stance on this is pretty resolute - that mass red-linking of names (in effect, breaking the Over-link policy) is not best practice, and should be abandoned straight away? It is not difficult for anyone to create an article for an MP and then create the link "back". I don't agree that each and every constituency page - 650 current ones, remember, with potentially hundreds of names in each case, with hundreds if not thousands more totalled up - should become littered with line after line of red links.

I propose that Boelyn's edits are reverted, in full, from every page, to remove the line after line after line of red-links. I notice that there has been little, if any, discussion on this page or elsewhere which ended with the resolution that an editor should be tasked to create thousands of red-links.

Any assistance or input into this would be appreciated. 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)

My understanding is that MPs are notable, and thus should have redlinks, which hopefully will be turned into bluelinks, quickly or over time. If I have misunderstood this, of course I will cease adding wikilinks in constituency articles to MPs. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: Doktorbuk is referring to User:Boleyn (not Boelyn). There's been a discussion about this matter between Doktorbuk and Boleyn at User talk:Boleyn#From Doktorbuk. An example of what Doktorbuk means is here.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Preston is no longer a good example, as Doktorbuk has removed all links I added there, both red and blue links. He has also removed links (both red and blue) from Radnorshire, and several other constituency pages have had links to pre-18th century MPs removed; I haven't checked those ones to see if it's just redlinks that have been removed or blue also. I am unsure what would now be a good example; I know Kingston upon Hull hasn't had links removed so far. Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this little article? I came across it on an unrelated matter but it looks to have some WP:POV and WP:COAT issues. Perhaps someone here would be more qualified than me to bring it up to scratch. Thanks, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the WP:POV and WP:COAT problems, and I've removed some assertion that are not supported by the refs. that I can access (I couldn't read the Times one — paywalled.)—A bit iffy (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I wonder what the future of the article should be. The concept itself is surely a world-wide one, and for much of human history — not essentially concerning the Brown premiership as some editor(s) have tried to spin it. On the other hand, perhaps a "non-job" is such a nebulous, vague thing that it can't ever be more than a WP:DICDEF and hence can't merit a useful article. Anyone got any thoughts?—A bit iffy (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree – I think the article should be focussed on the social/political phenomenon of the "non-job" as identified in 2000s UK; contextualised, of course. So there would definitely be potential to chart the rise of the term, the settings in which it has been used, any analysis of it as a moniker, and perhaps and studies looking at the existence (or not) of jobs like those at this time. (This reply sounds all rather jargony, I hope you get the idea. I'm not a social scientist, so it isn't deliberate.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If the article is to be expanded rather than deleted, it should look at the origins of the term (if they can be found), and use more objective analyses of the term like this that cover its use by highly politicised media as well as politicians. The term "non-job" is a political construct, not something that actually exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This really does seem guaranteed to produce a biased article particulary as job descriptions are geared more to attract applicants than to educate the public about their purpose. A non-job holder is unlikely to be given the opportunity of self justification. I recommend the article should become a non-article :) JRPG (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree now — if the article exists, its focus should be on its usage in UK politics. I have doubts whether the usage merits its own article, but not strong enough to launch an AfD.—A bit iffy (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the article as it's an established term. Just because the term is pejorative doesn't make the article any less valid. We still have "nigger" as an article! Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because a politician invents a new pejorative term, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have an article on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move. KarlB (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I wonder if you could pass your expert unbiased eyes over a section I've added in the political commentary section on David Cameron and Lord Ashcroft and also look the talk page. It's a short section in an important article and I'd be grateful for any constructive input. Thanks in eager anticipation. JRPG (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think there were enough Election Box formats (!) so I made one for the Supplementary Vote counting system used for English mayoral elections and the forthcoming England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012. The template is based on the one created for San Francisco mayoral election, 2011.

You can see the box on Mansfield mayoral election, 2011. I have some more features in mind but any comments welcome, especially about the desirability of the bar graphic. Incidentally while looking at these mayoral elections there is some tidying needed as it is difficult to find whether a page exists for any given election, some have voting figures on the page about the position but most don't, etc. Sussexonian (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sussexonian. Thanks for doing this. I like the look of the Mansfield box, and importantly how easy the template looks to fill in for regular editors. Has it been tested for parties with and without articles? doktorb _words^deeds 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been doing some work on underused digital resources, and today produced ((Stormont)), for linking to the Stormont Papers project (effectively Hansard for Northern Ireland, 1921-72). Hopefully it'll be some use to anyone interested in working on the period. If there's anywhere else you think would be useful to notify people of the template, please circulate it... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a note at WT:NIR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved: Road Wizard (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. New Labour has been a good article candidate for a little while; I was wondering if anyone could review it for me? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing what infobox to use for by-elections. Further input would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Sharing the UK Politics banner. Please add any comments there if you are interested. Road Wizard (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of the MP pages seem to have Hansard record listed under 'external links'. For example Tom Watson (politician). Is there any standard for putting a link to Hansard in an infobox, and if not can I suggest that it is adopted as a standard? I don't know what the process is for doing that here. Extua (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added Hansard links to thousands of MP articles, and it would be great to have them all linked.

There are two sources for Hansard:

1. Current and recent Hansards (since 1988 for the Commons) are on the Parliament website at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/
2. Hansard from 1803 to 2005 are http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/. This is an experimental site which uses data from the Hansard Digitisation project; it has the advantage of covering a huge period, but the disadvantage of having imperfect indexing.

So, the question of which to use depends on the period when the MP served. For anyone in Parliament pre-1988, there should be a link to the millbanksystems site, because that's the only on-line record of that period. For anyone in Parliament before 2005, I suggest that those links should be added anyway.

I would like to recommend adding a link to the Parliament site for MPs since 1988, but Parliament website doesn't seem to have done a good job of indexing. At http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/by-mp/, they seem to have separate indexes for each session, and no combined index.

There are two templates for adding the Millbanksystems links:

1. ((UK MP links)), which is a general-purpose template for creating lots of external links to websites on MPs, including Millbanksystems. I would recommend use of this template for those whose career as MPs includes the period after 2001. It includes a parameter for linking to the current Hansards, but AFAICS that setup is broken :(
2. ((hansard-contribs)), which is an older single-purpose template (written by me) for linking to the Millbanksystems. It includes instructions on how to create the link, which are also applicable to the ((UK MP links)) template.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ah, that's very useful, thanks for explaining Extua (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked to the same template twice. The second one is ((hansard-contribs)), so i have just corrected comment. A month late :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened up at Talk:List of British shadow cabinets. Please feel free to comment! RGloucester (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant to take a look at that today but haven't had time. I will see if I can fit it in tomorrow evening. Road Wizard (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I’ve been working for a while on various UK shadow cabinet articles. They are all currently located in this category: Category:British shadow cabinets. Many of them need refurbishment, or more information. Especially the Liberal Democrat ones, which are still unfinished. Also, currently we only have articles for the shadow cabinets from 1970 - present, excluding the Heath’s 1974-75 shadow cabinet. If anyone would like something to do, doing some research for these articles would be great. It is NOT EASY to find information on older shadow cabinets. But if anyone has access to this information, it would be very useful. You can use Shadow Cabinet of Margaret Thatcher as a template. I would suggest that the most important entry that we currently lack is that one I mentioned above, Second Shadow Cabinet of Edward Heath. Good luck! RGloucester (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

At Michael Portillo, in the info box, he's listed as MP under John Major at Enfield South until 1 May 1997, when he lost his seat. However, he's listed as Secretary of State for Defence under John Major until 2 May 1997. Is this another of our good old fashioned constitutional quirks? Hiding T 10:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think so: the Blair government didn't come into office until 2 May (after the votes were counted) so I presume the incumbent ministers held onto office until then.Lozleader (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that. Hiding T 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ministerial Offices are retained until the next person takes over as government has to continue functioning even when there isn't a parliament. For example, if a country decided to declare war on the UK on 1st May the armed forces would need to know who was in charge at MoD.

I think it is the other date that is incorrect though. Parliament was dissolved on 8 April 1997 so there were no MPs after that date. He stopped being an MP on 8 April and his replacement didn't take over until 2 May. Road Wizard (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder about that but it seems to be the standard convention on Wikipedia, presumably because if Portillo had won the election he'd have remained MP. I think an incumbent remains incumbent until defeated, again through a quirk in the constitution. He can't be called to Parliament since Parliament is dissolved, but would technically still be an MP. Hiding T 18:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, they stop being the MP at the moment Parliament is disolved. There have been discussions about it before, however it was probably too much effort to convert all articles especially as well intentioned editors would just mistakenly change it back. Road Wizard (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fllowing that through would mean that every returned MP would have two terms as MP, which would be a very obtuse way of looking at things. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refer back to the archives of this talk page. As I said, the issue has come up before and I'm not the one who raised the points. I thought consensus had formed so that MPs who weren't re-elected should have their end date listed as the day parliament was disolved. However, I have been away from Wikipedia for 2 years so a new consensus may have been formed. I'm happy to go along with whatever the current consensus says.

Out of curiosity, which definition of obtuse are you using in this context? Road Wizard (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(undent): Isn't that one rule for MPs who won and another for MPs that didn't? Anyway I wasn't aware of the past discussion. Oh, and I didn't mean obtuse as in "dimwitted" or anything personal, merely "indirect" - (in my opinion) needlessly complex, because saying they were MP from 1997 till 2005 (say) would achieve the same. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the consensus that I thought had formed when I left; Multiple terms are considered as a straight run with the start date as the day the returning officer provided the constituency result and the end date as the dissolution of Parliament in their final term.

The inconsistent approach between single and multiple terms may be one of the reasons why it was never followed through. Road Wizard (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John Gummer, Baron Deben#Requested move to John Gummer. -- Trevj (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think some people here might be interested in a discussion that is currently going on at WT:WikiProject Conservatism about problems with that project. If you are interested, start reading that talk page, starting with the section "NPOV edit requests". There is also much of interest in the talk page archives. RGloucester (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've just pointed out on the talk page, this article is a disgrace. Lacking sources (and thus violating WP:BLP policy), and full of WP:OR. If it isn't improved dramatically, and soon, I'm going to take an axe to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With a title like that I am almost afraid to look. If there are sourcing issues and BLP violations I for one would be happy for you to chop them out. Road Wizard (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That article is a disgrace, it is - dare I say it - a scandal. Andy, I encourage you to take an axe to it. I suggest following some well defined rules about what should and what shouldn't be there, like the rules at List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Perhaps civil or criminal prosecution should be required for something to be considered a 'scandal', or that the incident should be described as such by multiple reliable sources? FurrySings (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pnen27 (talk · contribs) has made the following article moves:

• Radicals (UK) to Radicals (political party)
• Tory (British political party) to Tory (political party)
• Whig (British political party) to Whig (political party) - (now reverted)

Unfortunately in each case there are other political parties with the same name so the disambiguation doesn't work. I reverted the Whig entry before I spotted the others. Is there a consensus to revert or are there better names that can be used? Road Wizard (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Those changes shouldn't have been made, full stop. If they were made without consensus then that's a pretty rough act from him. Request reverts from whereever that's hidden these days doktorb _words^deeds 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

someone should add that andrew mitchell quit govt to cameron ministry page 128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone will probably get around to it sooner or later. You are welcome to edit the articles yourself. Road Wizard (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Wales and Category:Constituencies of Northern Ireland‎, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just joined the project this evening and was wondering if someone could help me with 2010 United Kingdom government formation, I've been working on it on and off for about a year, and think there's a chance for it to go for a GAN. The sort of things I'm looking for are refs for the breakdown of results, and some help compiling these. I copied the current stats from United Kingdom general election, 2010 and have referenced as much as I can, but there's still some information to source. I'll put the article forward for peer review eventually, but thought it would be useful to ask here first. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You mention compiling election data. Are you wanting to include a section with a table summarising the results or perhaps a paragraph of prose explaining the key points? The information currently in the article has at least one citation per paragraph. Are there particular paragraphs where you want us to help improve the sourcing? Road Wizard (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article could do with a copyedit; I'll try to do it myself (a bit anyway). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, that would be great. I'm looking for help with the prose in the Background section really, as I'm not sure if everything in the paragraphs is correctly referenced. I originally copied the text for that section from a previous version of the main article, intending to reference as much as I could. I came back to it this evening, and have been Googling away merrily for information, but I think there are gaps. I know for example I couldn't find anything to support the 0.8% swing to Labour in Scotland, so I'm not sure if that figure's correct. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need any more information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I've given that a look and you can review. The "Background" section does end up being rather statistics heavy, which makes the prose a bit clunky and repetitive (not too bad but not perfect). I wonder if, in the general style of "Background" sections the narrative might be more important, particularly when discussing the exit polls (i.e. consider substituting a summary like "a minor adjustment in Labour's favour" for the actual results of the middle exit polls). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just read through and it looks fine. I've added a ref for the results, and will make the suggested change before I sign off for the night. I'll look at other possible changes tomorrow. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ok, hopefully updated the right stats. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Have added a few images, mostly of party leaders and a diagram of the make up of the Parliament. Thanks for copyediting. I'll wait for my current peer review to close then put this forward for some feedback. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that File talk:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg has been tagged with our banner. It has been tagged with FM (I assume to represent Featured Media) but our banner interprets it as a standard file. Should we add support for FM-class in our assessment scale? It must be one of the extended classes that projects have the option to include and it shouldn't take me long to find the setting to activate it. Road Wizard (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Might as well. I added portal class a while ago. RGloucester (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I added it along with Redirect class. I've seen a few pages classed as redirects recently but they get dumped in the non-article category. Road Wizard (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good before the election to agree on what the criteria should be for a party to be included in the infobox - that would be better than having arguments after the election where people's criteria just happens to allow the inclusion of their preferred party. I suggest a cut-off point of 5% on average across the areas that a party is standing in, as most parties, perhaps because of the size of the deposit needed to stand a candidate, are not standing in every area. One alternative is to have a cut-off point of 5% of all votes cast, but I don't think that would be fair on all the parties apart from Labour and the Conservatives. What do other people think? Kookiethebird (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Should be raised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page. JRPG (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am raising this here as suggested. The above refers to the PCC elections page. Kookiethebird (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see from your edit history you mean Talk:England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012. I was scratching my head for a minute wondering where we have an election page for parochial church councils. Road Wizard (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've spotted people working on the Dennis McShane article. To preempt any silliness, I've created articles for by-elections this year and next, and redirected them to the Rotherham constituency page. doktorb _words^deeds 12:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I spotted Jersey Communist Party in the assessment log for 10 November. Should we treat politics and government of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man in our scope or just leave them to the wider Politics project? They are not technically part of the United Kingdom so a strict interpretation of our scope would suggest excluding them. On the other hand though, editors of this project are more likely to understand the issues of the Crown dependencies than the editors of the Politics project as they are dominated more by US editors.
If we do want to include them perhaps we should set them as a Crown dependency task force? That way we can provide support to the articles while maintaining a degree of separation from UK politics articles. Road Wizard (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of current United Kingdom MPs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current United Kingdom MPs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the articles entitled "Nth Parliament of the United Kingdom" redirect to lists of MPs. Wouldn't it be better to have an article based on, e.g. 1st United States Congress? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is it to use "notional results". I think they are over used and they are in effect not a lot more than "educated guesswork" as the individual polling district results are not made public which would allow for accurate and empirical "notional results" to be drawn. There was also a farcical situation on Wikipedia in one seat where the the incumbent had left the political party they had been elected for and the "gain/hold" part at the bottom was listed as a gain from one party to another party. No mention of the fact the individual was an independent and they were standing as an independent in the election, was given. The reasoning given was the notional results made it a seat for a party. it must be remembered in these cases electors elect people not parties. Meaning the party platform if any must be reflected accurately in the gain/hold of the incumbent. Sport and politics (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on whether the section about the internet activity of MP and Conservative Party Co-Chairman Grant Shapps gives undue weight. The discussion could do with a wider range of opinions. Please see the RfC section on the talk page and also the preceding section.2.227.136.105 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the debates happening here and here regarding on whether or not UKIP and Nigel Farage should be included in infoboxes and opinion polls leading up to the next election. The debate seems to have become a bit stagnant, and so as much attention from people as possible would be appreciated. – Richard BB 17:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Politicized edit warring
  • Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Campaign
  • Talk:UK Independence Party#Fostering row
    • Rotherham by-election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — currently protected because of edit warring
    • UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — currently protected because of the same edit warring
    • Denis MacShane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Nigel Farage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consider this a challenge if you like. Can you U.K. Wikipedians do a better job of dealing with your domestic partisan political issues in the weeks prior to an election than the U.S. Wikipedians do? ☺ The talk pages for the by-election and for the political party need you. Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add Sarah Champion to the list as I've just removed something which appears to be someone's opinion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've listed the article Boris Johnson for peer review, with a view to it going forward to GAN. I recently failed it as a GA nomination because of various issues, but feel as Johnson could be a future Conservative leader we need to get it up to at least GA quality. Please feel free to contribute to the peer review or help improve the article. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Representative peer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently articles on constituencies are titled using disambiguation brackets, thus: St Albans (UK Parliament constituency). This is unnecessary, awkward, and not in line with naming policy per WP:NATURAL. Where there is a need for disambiguation the policy is: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." Reliable sources use "St Albans constituency", as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. A wide range of sources over a wide range of years. Added to which editors naturally use that phrase in articles, as in Hitchin and Harpenden (UK Parliament constituency): "Prior to 1997 Hitchin was included in the North Hertfordshire constituency and Harpenden in the St Albans constituency, while the village of Wheathampstead was part of the Welwyn Hatfield constituency.", Bedmond and Primrose Hill: "the ward is primarily in the St Albans constituency", Kerry Pollard: "elected as MP for the St Albans constituency", Three Rivers District: "Most of the north-eastern ward of Bedmond and Primrose Hill is in the St Albans constituency".

I will be moving articles which use the form Foo (UK Parliament constituency) to the form Foo constituency so that they comply with policy, are easier to use and find for editors and readers, match up with sources, and so that templates such as ((findnotice)) are better employed. If I have misunderstood something, or people have objections or questions, please let me know either here or on my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please hold off for a couple of days, at least - there was a pretty extensive discussion some years ago which settled on this form, and we probably shouldn't rush into changing it without waiting for wider comments :-)

I agree the current form is clunky (at least for England) but I'm not sure that X constituency is a better form - it's really just another form of disambiguation, but written with running text rather than as brackets. The proper names here are Hitchin and Harpenden, North Herfordshire or St Albans; I read the running text as adding "constituency" just to avoid confusion.

Whichever way this is decided, though, mass-creation of redirects from "...constituency" or "...parliamentary constituency" is probably helpful. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I generally proceed very slowly with large scale changes such as this proposal. I agree that Foo constituency is a disambiguation. It is called natural disambiguation. The use of brackets to disambiguate is called parenthetical disambiguation, and there is a third form called comma-separated disambiguation. The preference, where possible, is to use natural disambiguation as that is the form that is easiest for readers and editors to use and recognise. In this situation we have a widespread use of the natural disambiguation both in sources and among Wikipedia editors, so the transition from brackets to natural should be fairly trouble-free. I'll take a look at the older discussions to see what people said. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at past discussions (which are mainly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies) the main point of contention was consistency. Some people were happy to only disambiguate when needed, others wanted to disambiguate all the time for the purpose of consistency. The consensus was for consistency. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough - I seem to be reading a little muzzily this morning :-) If that makes sense I'm happy to go with it.

The old discussions were very old (I think they were mainly in the run up to the 2005 election(!) and rehashed in 2010) and our approach to disambiguation has evolved somewhat since then. My only other concern is with consistency - natural disambiguation won't work for many Scottish constituencies without getting clumsy (eg/ Edinburgh Central (UK Parliament constituency), Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency)). Perhaps we would want to switch these to something like Edinburgh Central constituency (Holyrood) & (Westminster), or (Scottish parliament) and (UK parliament? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You will do such thing. First of all, there's no consensus to change. Secondly, you can't act "alone" in this way as per other Wikipedia policies. Thirdly, as Andrew says above, with devolution there's actually a greater need to disambiguate. Finally, somewhere like Wigan or Preston or Burnley could be the town, the former Urban council, the current council, the local authority, the constituency...... In which case, all things considered, the disambiguation must remain doktorb _words^deeds 12:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm note sure I follow your points, could you clarify for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no good reason to change the current method of disambiguation, which is both clear and consistent. That, for me, trumps any reading of WP:NATURAL. If it ain't broke... There is a danger that moving to "Foo constituency" would simply increase confusion, as there are many types of constituency. It is the context - discussion of domestic UK politics - that allows newspapers etc. to refer to "Foo constituency", but we do not have that context in setting article titles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• The proposed method of disambiguation is both clear and consistent, it is simply changing from brackets (which are rarely used outside of Wikipedia) to natural disambiguation - that is what people actually write. If you look at my proposal you'll note the number of sources I gave which show that natural usage. "If it aint broke...."; well, it kinda is broke, because the article names are awkward, artificial, clunky to use, don't work efficiently with templates such as ((findnotice)) so all uses of the name have to be converted to the natural anyway. If we have to use a workaround to get to the natural usage, then it's broken. The only usage for "St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)" is on Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, whereas "St Albans constituency" is already in common usage and cannot be misunderstood even out of context because it means what it says - this is the electoral district of St Albans. What other meanings of constituency are there? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right. We disambiguate for a good purpose - it helps identify exactly what is being discussed in the article. "Wigan (UK Parliament constituency)" can only be about Wigan. "Wigan" could be about the town, the local authority, the former urban district, the rugby league side, anything. "Cities of London and Westminster South" is clearly the constituency, but without the disambiguation part at the end, it's "cut adrift" from the rest of the project. I agree with you entirely that removing the qualifying phrase would increase confusion, and note that consensus on this matter was reached twice before. I also note that, at 2013, we are close to the next election, meaning any wholesale changes could be very disruptive for the project as a whole doktorb _words^deeds 12:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am proposing changing from using brackets disambiguation to using natural disambiguation, which is what policy recommends per WP:Natural. I'm not proposing that we stop disambiguating entirely. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is the additional problem that some constituency names are used for different legislature, meaning some would have to use something like the current version. On top of that, there are (if I understand correctly) templates that would have to be changed, perhaps with consequential changes to template parameters at hundreds of articles quite aside from the page moves. All in all, I don't see a compelling reason to reverse the prior decision. -Rrius (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am quite happy to do all the work. I have done it before in similar cases. The compelling reasons are that Wikipedia has created unnecessary artificial names for these articles, that the names are awkward to use, and do not naturally fit in with templates such as ((findnotice)), that by making this change it aids readers to find and recognise the article they want, and for editors to link to the articles without having to pipe around the natural usage. This section from Hitchin_and_Harpenden_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#History is currently written:

"The constituency was created in 1997 from parts of several former Hertfordshire seats. Prior to 1997 [[Hitchin]] was included in the [[North Hertfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)|North Hertfordshire]] constituency and [[Harpenden]] in the [[St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)|St Albans]] constituency, while the village of [[Wheathampstead]] was part of the [[Welwyn Hatfield (UK Parliament constituency)|Welwyn Hatfield]] constituency. The seat's first, and so far only, MP is a former Secretary of State for government various departments who had previously represented [[St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)|St Albans]] from 1983 until 1997.",

• though could be written such:

"The constituency was created in 1997 from parts of several former Hertfordshire seats. Prior to 1997 [[Hitchin]] was included in the [[North Hertfordshire constituency]] and [[Harpenden]] in the [[St Albans constituency]], while the village of [[Wheathampstead]] was part of the [[Welwyn Hatfield constituency]]. The seat's first, and so far only, MP is a former Secretary of State for government various departments who had previously represented St Albans from 1983 until 1997."

• Does that help? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really, and I don't find the edit-window-text argument terribly compelling. The issue of fitting in with certain templates hasn't even been explained, so I don't find that one compelling either. While it is nice you are willing to do the work, it seems like work that doesn't really need to be done. -Rrius (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Does this help?" No, SilkTork, it does not, and I agree with Rrius. Whether you want to "go rogue" and do all the work is something I thank you for, but not for this project of yours. For example, you're suggesting to create a new article format with "constituency" as part of the name, which is as much an invention for Wikipedia purposes at the current model. As I said earlier, the current articles are disambiguated in such a way that there can be no question or doubt about what they refer to - "St Albans constituency" might be alright, but what about "Glasgow Pollok" or "Glasgow Central" or "Cardiff Central"? I think there's a lot to be done with the articles, such as election results and boundaries, which would be a much better use of your time doktorb _words^deeds 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. I don't accept the argument that the current names are "awkward, artificial, clunky to use". It's a matter of opinion - in my opinion they are fine. And as others say, it is definitely not a priority. What is more of a priority is avoiding the need for good faith editors to waste time on unnecessary diversions like this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The names are artificial because they are not in standard use. They are only used on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia mirrors. They are awkward and clunky to use because they are not natural - instead of writing in an article "St Albans constituency" and then linking it to an article by adding [[ ]], we have to add [[St Albans (UK Parliament constituency)| ]]. And what is the difficulty with Cardiff Central constituency, Glasgow Central constituency, or Glasgow Pollok constituency? The terms are already in use. It's the easiest, simplest, most recognisable, most widely used disambiguation. It complies with the naming policy (and so follows a Wikipedia-wide consensus), is used by reliable sources, in particular the sources that deal most directly with the constituencies - the politicians themselves who represent the constituencies. We don't need to add "UK Parliament" per WP:PRECISE - "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, I genuinely have great sympathy with your intent and purpose, as it's clearly something which looks "out of place". However if you step back, you'd notice that the project has actually been doing exactly what the policy asks all along. If there's a Westminster constituency, we all it such. If it's a Holyrood constituency, we call it such. By adding the qualifier to the article name we're probably being more precise than most other corresponding articles (Indeed, I believe that the editors concerned with both Canadian and Australian politics have ensured the very same level of "belt and braces" disambiguation as us, without the same kind of sporadic difficulties we suffer here). I have no doubt, at all, that you're a valuable member of the project but on this one issue you're only just going over the same issues which have been dismissed before. I know the article titles look clumsy, but in keeping with the majority consensus and corresponding articles for other jurisdictions, they're acceptable. doktorb _words^deeds 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To quote the bowl of petunias, "oh no, not again". As already mentioned, rather a lot of discussion on this subject has happened previously. I'm not sure that I agree with the claim that the current format is unnatural, or somehow less natural that what SilkTork has proposed. Usual Wikipedia disambiguation has the form "Name of subject (clarification)". As the word "constituency" is not part of the name, I don't see what's wrong with the parentheses. Furthermore, given that there are some names which refer to both a UK and a devolved constituency, the "UK parliament" part is not redundant in certain cases, and then we're back to the issue of consistency again. I'd suggest "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". --RFBailey (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it ain't broke and doesn't need fixing. And what would happen to Leeds (UK Parliament constituency) and Leeds (European Parliament constituency)? As Einstein may or may not have said, let's keep things as simple as possible but no simpler. The present system is a bit cumbersome but we can work with it. PamD 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you folks are under the impression that the only disambiguation used on Wikipedia is brackets, and that is what is informing your views and comments. Please take a look at the policy section I am referring to: WP:Natural. You'll note that using brackets is only one out of three possibles, and is not the one preferred. The comments above are not addressing what I am saying. You keep repeating that this has been discussed previously, but I looked back, and there was no discussion on the point I am raising. There has been plenty of discussion regarding using disambiguation or not, and that some constituency articles do not need disambiguation. You folks have been through arguments regarding consistency. What I am proposing has nothing to do with that. What I am proposing keeps the disambiguation, keeps the consistency, but uses the natural phrase which reliable sources already use. It would be useful if folks here actually looked at what I am proposing rather than assuming this is the same old argument. And I must stress that it is broken. The style of name and disambiguation runs counter to two article name policies - WP:Precise and WP:Natural. It forces editors to create work arounds, it's an invented term when there is a simple and clear one already in use that could be used, and it doesn't aid readers in finding and recognising the topic they are looking for. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have looked at WP:Natural, and as I said, I do respect your view on this. But when there was a need to create the articles many years ago, the choice was made to disambiguate them in a particular way, and with general consensus that way has been continued. Consensus so heavy that I suggest it invokes WP:IGNOREALLRULES. You'll note above that there's examples such as "Leeds" where there's two disambiguations in place which suggest to outsiders that a perfectly reasonable system is already in place. If it's Westminster, Wikipedia uses "UK Parliament constituency", and if it's Europe, it's something else. (I am reminded by the policy which advises editors to keep a "world view", where the distinction between Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Brussels might not be so well considered.) As I said, you clearly have an enthusiasm but I'd suggest with all respect you put that towards filling in gaps, such as election results or boundary details, rather than a mass transit of articles for which there's no support amongst project members. doktorb _words^deeds 10:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Three things: First, thank you to RFBailey for the petunias reference; I needed the laugh. Second, we are not under a misapprehension; we simply disagree with you. We realize full well that other forms of disambiguator exist, but we think that what you are proposing is a bad idea. Finally, though most if not all of the editors who disagree with you (coincidentally, all the editors save yourself in the conversation) have mentioned that a significant part of the reason for the current scheme is that many constituency names are used for different levels of elections. Despite that, you have not addressed the point at all, merely continuing to lecture us about WP:Natural. What we are telling you is that there is more than adequate reason not to use the supposedly natural version. To put it in the terms of the disambiguation rules, the duplication of constituency names coupled with a strong rationale for employing a single naming scheme across constituencies for a given legislature makes it impossible to use a "natural" disambiguator as there is no natural disambiguator that would do the job. There is currently a remarkable degree of sanity with these constituency names that makes it extremely simple to work with them and, despite your contention, use them in articles. -Rrius (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• We have had the present format for a considerable time. Calling the Parliaments "Westminster" and "Holyrood" is mere journalistic shorthand. I am glad that no one has started splitting ancient constituencies according to England/GB/UK, when the English ones operated unchanged to 1832. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(OK, for the reason I actually came to this page....) I just created an article on John Cunliffe Pickersgill-Cunliffe, who was MP for about six weeks in 1869. According to the Bewdley constituency article, his successor Augustus Anson was a Liberal, but according to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1868 (see Note 2 at end of page), Anson was a Conservative. Anson's biography article claims neither. Does anyone know the answer, or failing that, does anyone know where an answer could be found? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

August Anson says he held the first of his two seats as a Conservative (not Bewdley, though). There are some references like page 197 and page 17 of which closer inspection might reveal the answer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the pamphlet at JSTOR 60202447, he was noted as a Liberal (and "a Palmerstonian") when elected; the seat seems to have been more or less in the gift of his brother Thomas, a Whig (and later Liberal). I've a couple of British Almanacs of the period to hand, but they annoyingly don't list party affiliation for MPs. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A possible explanation! This essay in the ODNB has him down as a fringe member of the Adullamites, a Liberal splinter group opposed to voting reform. Some of the Adullamites may have drifted across after the group dissolved; perhaps this explains the later discrepancy? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also now wondering about the accuracy of Cunliffe's party affiliation: I put Conservative as that's what the Bewdley constituency page had, but the odd sequence of elections being void on petition (both the 1868 general election and subsequent by-election were overturned) makes me wonder if the sequence of parties went Con-Lib-Con, rather than Con-Con-Con or Con-Con-Lib. Do FWS Craig's books contain party affiliations? --RFBailey (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My reading would be that Anson was Liberal certainly up to 1868 (as a placeman for his brother, he didn't seem to speak much on non-military issues); the article about 1871 army reform linked to above also suggests to me that he was formally a Liberal in his second stint, if definitely a rebellious one. This doesn't easily conclude anything about Cunliffe, but I'm tempted to say "probably Conservative". I'll have a look in British Newspapers Online later and see if it turns up an explanation; it must have made the local press in great detail... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, here we go. The election of 11/3/69 was contested by both Cunliffe and Anson; Anson brought a petition alleging fraudulent voting by Cunliffe's supporters. (petition). There's a detailed report in the Worcestershire Chronicle here, which calls Cunliffe a Conservative and describes Anson as "a frequenter of the Cave of Abdullam, but latterly repentant of his resort thither, a thorough-going Liberal as of this date" - so he was certainly elected as a Liberal in 1869. There's a brief summary of the 1868 petition here; in that election, it seems Sir Richard Glass (Conservative) was elected over "Mr Lloyd" - unstated but presumably Liberal. Neither Cunliffe or Anson appear to have been candidates in that election, which was overthrown on claims of bribery; it doesn't say who brought the petition. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

...however (this is fun!) Richard Atwood Glass and Cunliffe turn out to have been connected anyway; Glass was a manufacturer of submarine cables and Cunliffe was a prominent & active shareholder in the Atlantic Telegraph Company/Anglo-American Telegraph Company. I wonder if this explains how he got recruited as the replacement candidate? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on pages recently around how best to cover UKIP, particularly in the light of their recent improved polling. The latest discussion is at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#3rd_party_lead:_OR_concerns (and Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Add_UKIP_2010.2F11_data.3F_3rd_party_lead_in_depth before that). It concerns whether the table of opinion polls results should highlight which party is in 3rd position and by how much (the "3rd party lead"), as well as showing which party is in 1st place. You can see my view expressed there, but I would welcome broader input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi to everyone of this Wikiproject. It seems that the consensus that dictates the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has mostly been formed as a result of mass sock puppetry. This case has exposed that the "users" who have had the most influence on the article's talk page have been only one user. The sock puppet in question as been pushing a strong pro-UKIP bias (and is not the first sock to do so). As such, it's difficult to see whether or not the article is in any way objective. I, therefore, come to this Wikiproject to try to inject some new opinions into this article. One user raised concerns that having a "third party lead" in the table is WP:OR; he was quickly argued down by the socks, however. I have now archived every debate that was concluded and struck the socks' comments, and request that we can now debate these issues from a fresh start. The only two discussions I have left unarchived are my own (where I detail the developments about the socks) and the aforementioned debate regarding OR concerns. Now that the sock is gone, I'd like more objective people to discuss this issue. Does it the page look like it's showing a pro-UKIP bias? Is it original research to highlight the third party? Are there any suggestions you'd make? Please let us achieve a more objective consensus on the talk page. Thanks. – Richard BB 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I am in disagreement with an IP editor over the reporting of polling at Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013. A third (or fourth, fifth...) opinion would be most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this template is incomplete, and that proper citations to debates of the British Parliament often require information like volume and series numbers—information that cannot be entered into the template in its current form. Please discuss here. Waltham, The Duke of 11:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia has yet to create an article on the Cameron government's under-occupancy penalty (bedroom tax), which is arguably one of the most controversial measures since Thatcher's poll tax. Would anyone like to try and have a crack it with me? JJARichardson (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm working on other things, but good luck finding a title people agree on! I think Cameron called it a "Spare room subsidy" in PMQs this week. I think it's what Number 10 is pushing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there who is in charge of British politcs, e.g. Political funding in the U.K.? Please have a look at that article and get in touch. Thank you! Khnassmacher (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Crossposted here by the wub "?!" 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a complete newbie here. I have been trying to track down a complete list of elected MPs + constituency + party affiliation. It appears that Wikipedia already has this data, but I want to be able to slurp the complete dataset up into a Perl script so that I can use it for automatic lookup for a project I'm helping out with on linguistic analysis of Hansard speeches.

I can, it seems, use a web browser to go thru each General Election date page and then thru each of the alphabetic sub-sections A-Z for that election date, click "[edit]" and then copy-and-paste the plain ansii data (in the following format):

== A ==
|-
!Constituency!!MP!!Party
|-
| [[Aberavon (UK Parliament constituency)|Aberavon]]
| [[John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon|John Morris]]
| Labour
|-
| [[Aberdare (UK Parliament constituency)|Aberdare]]
| [[Arthur Probert]]
| Labour
|-

But this will take me a Long Time! Surely the data is sitting somewhere in a file that can be FTP'd or whatever.

Can anyone help? Jemclear (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually like to be helping out, if you need another political expert! A list of all runs to 10s of thousands, and many have changed seats and parties as you know. Putting a list together of all that change would take donkeys years and probably be a waste of time. A history lesson will teach whoever is instructing you that party affiliations in the old days were at best loose and now are frequently changed. Whether someone is Rt Hon is far more important. The election lists of MPs are good, I'd just copy them straight into whatever app you use to get your perl script. Alternatively give their names, as per this fairly full list the rest of their details I'd say is what everyone should know or can wikipedia, as it changes so readily and I wouldn't want to be caught out on either of those two obscure but sometimes useful details by saying "Conservative" "Labour" "Liberal" "Liberal Unionist" "Liberal Democrat" or even "Labour-Coop" which is even more fraught with change, as too are the names of seats.Adam37 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A few recent edits to this appear to have been made by someone connected with the subject, who seems to be attempting to defend her position on certain issues. I've templated it for potential neutrality issues, but wondered if someone Could take a quick look and tidy it up. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Input is required here. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in need of help on the attached political cartoon. There are three political caricatures in the form of wasps, but I can't place any of them, as it's not really my field. The original with greater detail can be found here. Answers on a postcard or just add them to the article. Thanks in advance for any help. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:REFDESK? Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if members gave their views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate. -Rrius (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just added some more details as to why Irish Unionists opposed Home Rule. The tone of the previous articles suggest it was largely an economic question when that was only one factor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to seek outside opinion on a sourcing discussion at this talk page. The relevant section is here. Thanks. Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in a joint FAC nomination for this article? It would make a very interesting TFA, but I may have difficulty taking it through the process. I'm putting it forward for PR in a few weeks, once my current PR expires, so there's plenty of time. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parliament of England, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that several of the recent edits to the Battle of Cable Street article have been subtley trying to move away from NPOV towards a fascist view point. I don't know enough about the topic (or have the time) to look into this further, so I've not touched anything for now but it would be good to get eyes on it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A delayed response, but I've only just seen this. I reverted the user's edits, as it was clearly dripping with WP:OR and a non-neutral PoV. It's now on my watchlist, but the editor appears to be pushing a pro-fascist PoV elsewhere. — Richard BB 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I am planning to take on the impossible! The Children Act 1989 article.. anyone fancy giving me some help? =) Thanks, Staceydolxx (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Suggestbot has come up with a list of stubs for me that included lots of former UK and EU constituencies. I couldn't think of anything to add to any of them. Can anyone suggest (or guide me towards the tools to find) any good former constituency article that could give me ideas as to what to look for.Rankersbo (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Have any significant boundary changes come into effect in the past few years to the relevant areas for this year's election. If so, please let me know so I can update the baseline boundary maps on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

County Durham has new boundaries this year, and I think some other councils do as well. The BBC have a list here which includes whether councils up this year have boundary changes or not but I don't know how accurate it is. Thanks, the maps are great! Pilchard (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a current boundary map for County Durham - see the two to right. I'll refresh the rest over next week or two when I have free time.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! - I've already made good use of the Durham map. Pilchard (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated maps on Commons for Bucks, Cambs, Cornwall, Cumbria, Derbys, Glos, Northants, Northumberland, Oxon, Somerset, Staffs and Surrey; as well as Anglesey. I think that's all the counties that need revision.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Don't seem to get much help from these project pages but thought it was worth a try anyway.. I have just written Police protection provisions article and I need a bit of help with it. I have listed a few things on the talk page; I would really appreciate some advice. I am not great at article writing and could do with some help.

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been adding turnout figures to the election summary template, where possible, in the model of Turkish general election, 2011, as I think it's an important figure that deserves to be alongside other essential information. I was bold, but I'd like to know if anyone disagrees or thinks it should be positioned differently. I am currently working my way through the 90s/80s, and plan to go back as far as the turnout figures go. Quantum Burrito (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Northern Ireland#Is there any UK law governing ".ie" domains?, please have a look at some of the discussion and contribute your thoughts thanks.

PS, for balance, I also listed this RFC on Ireland Collaboration page. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to check edits by Rjensen (talk · contribs). In mid June, he made a series of very weird and bad edits to political articles, such as [1][2][3] ; where he duplicated, triplicated, quadriplicated categories, navigation boxes, and used the wrong dates for categories. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

let's not get carried away. what happened was my sloppy cut and paste of bibliography items that accidentally included categories I hadn't noticed. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. Could someone with knowledge of the subject review this edit to Isle of Wight Council election, 2013? I have blocked the IP as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Sheffno1gunner and rolled back their edits, but I would not object to reinstating the edit if others think it is worthwhile. If you think it should go back in, you can just undo my edit - there's no need to ask permission. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite past and current practice around the project, editors have (in what seems to be a snit) removed the election infobox at Next United Kingdom general election because they are sick of responding to people advocating UKIP's inclusion in the infobox. Is this the right decision? Have your say at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#No infobox, no problem. -Rrius (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This article, which is a very important one, really needs some help. It is terribly outdated, and needs to include the present history of the Cameron’s premiership…while I don’t have the time or ability to be thorough with this article, I thought I’d put this notice here for anyone that might be interested in patching up the article’s masonry. RGloucester — 📬 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While I’m at it, I might as well suggest another article to take a look at: United Kingdom government austerity programme. Woefully outdated, and the prose is too dense. I have no idea what to do with it, to be honest. RGloucester — 📬 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am currently creating an article on the Business Angel CoFund. It is in draft stage right now and can be found here User:IP7942/Business Angel Co-Investment Fund. It is a non-departmental public body that operates in the venture capital arena, so I originally asked those from the Private Equity Taskforce to look at it. However, it appears that there are no longer any active members. I would be grateful if someone from this wikiproject would take a look at it and help me with some tidying up/editing. Thanks in advance. --IP7942 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello IP7942. I've done some simple copy-editing to the draft article. I think it reads a little like an 'advert' for the organistion and could perhaps do with some more balance, although I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be able to suggest anything specific. Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Thom2002. If you have any suggestions on how to make it sound less like an advert that would be great. I did try to just state facts and make sure everything was referenced. --IP7942 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Please see the neutral point of view guidance at WP:NPOV. If the organisation has experienced any difficulties or setbacks then please describe them in the main body of the article for balance. Always keep a neutral tone and avoid the kind of language that one might find in a promotional lefalet. Things like being shortlisted for an award are probably at the fringes of notability. Finally, if you have a conflict of interest (eg if you are paid for any work in relation to the organisation) then you are strongly encouraged to disclose this, see WP:COI. Thanks and happy editing. Thom2002 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thom2002. I did check out the NPOV guidance before I started the article. What would you recommend me to do as next steps? I'm thinking that it should be submitted for publishing to enable others to give their view on it. Thanks. --IP7942 (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See the comments on Talk:List of civil parishes in Lincolnshire--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would welcome an opinion at Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Gains and holds. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:UN Security Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

image:Malcolm, 2nd Baron Shepherd of Spalding (1980s).jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Reform League asserts that Beales did not attend the Marble Arch demonstration because he stopped off at a tea-house. There is no reference cited for this.Royden Harrison ("Before The Socialists" 1965 p82 asserts that Beales was at Marble Arch. So does Paul Foot ("The Vote" 2005 p148. So does Tevelyan ("The Life of John Bright" 1913 p 361. Is there any reputable confirmation on this canard against a noble soul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldred68 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

image:Flag of the Chief of the Defence Staff.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

An editor has added pictures to many, many ministers listed at Cameron ministry. My opinion is that this is not needed, and has made a mess of well-working tables. Would anyone care to comment there? RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an obituary of British Labour Party MP at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-martin-redmond-1284312.html from which much of the following has been taken and added to the existing article. It is a favourable obituary and was written by Mr Peter Hardy, one of Martin Redmond’s teachers.

Additionally, I have taken information from UFOdefe-24-1984-1.pdf http://code.google.com/p/ufoo-fb-fb/downloads/detail?name=defe-24-1984-1.pdf which concerns UFO sightings and the British Governments response to them. The parts referred to are scattered throughout the searchable document.

I apologise for not doing the work but I am afraid that I would cause chaos with my limited skills.

Expanded version

Martin Redmond (15 August 1937 – 16 January 1997)[1]was a British Labour Party politician from Doncaster in South Yorkshire.

He was born in Scawsby, near Doncaster, a son of an Irish family who had been drawn to the area by the prospect of mining work. As a boy, he moved to Adwick-le-Street. Redmond was educated at Woodlands Roman Catholic School and left school at 15, to become a miner. Later, by day release, he studied at the University of Sheffield.[2]

However, like many young men from the coalfield, he volunteered for the army, becoming first a driver and later a junior NCO before returning to work in the coal industry as a driver, where he became active as a union member.

He served as a member of Doncaster Urban District Council before local government reorganisation in 1974, and was elected to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 1975 He succeeded Jim MacFarlane as Council leader when MacFarlane died in 1982.

During Redmond's tenure on Doncaster Council, the Denaby Main area was transformed - evidence of his commitment and of his practical approach to council service.

In the 1983 General Election, Redmond succeeded MP, Tom Williams, a Minister of Agriculture, and entered the Commons as Labour MP for Don Valley sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers and made his maiden speech on 5th July 1983 on the Housing and Building Control Bill and spoke frequently in the Commons on the miners strike.

He was a leading member of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups for interest in Thailand, Bahrain, Malta and ASEAN.[citation needed]

In 1987 Redmond was elected to the Council of Europe and appointed a member of the Budget and Environment committees, and a rapporteur, concerned with the computerisation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993-94). He was re-elected in 1987[5] and 1992,[6] but health problems developed and he had to withdraw from this European role in the early 1990s, subsequently staying at his home close to Doncaster.

In his final, active year, he tabled 15 written questions on Unidentified Flying Objects in the House of Commons. These questions also queried the role of DI55, a section of the Defence Intelligence Agency, and their work and methods. DI55 were then situated at RAF Rudloe Manor in Warwickshire, 150 miles from Martin Redmond’s constituency, and responsible, as a minor part of their function, for logging and investigating UFO reports from the public and others. The papers, now declassified and held in the Public Archive at Kew, London, show that there was some concern that, given the nature of RAF Rudloe Manor, Martin Redmond might have been lobbied to ask the questions although the source of this lobbying was not identified in the papers.

Martin Redmond never married and had no children.

He died in office in January 1997[1] from undisclosed causes.[citation needed] No by-election was held, and his seat remained vacant when Parliament was dissolved in April for the general election in May 1997.[7]

GaryGMason (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)GaryGMason

There are currently a number of proposals to improve the language at WP:MOSNUM relating to the use of Units in UK related articles. External opinion is invited at WP:MOSNUM#RFC: Proposals to rewrite WP:MOSNUM on UK units of preference. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'Political Positions of David Cameron' article lacks references in many sections, such as "immigration" and "welfare" section. I'm trying to update article with new info, citations etc. If someone could help that would be great! Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmondo Italiano (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to start a new section in the page on "Shortest-lived MPs" immediately following that on "Longest-lived".

I have found a contender for the record in the English Parliament in James Wriothesley, Lord Wriothesley, who was MP for Callington (Cornwall) in 1621-22 and began sitting in the so-called Happy Parliament early in 1624 for Winchester. He died of fever, still a serving Member, while on military service in the Netherlands on 5 November 1624, aged 19 years and 251 days, having been recorded born on 1 March 1605.

If anybody knows of any contenders who were shorter-lived than he, and any since the setting of the election age at 21, you are invited to declare it and contribute.Cloptonson (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I also have contender for shortest-lived woman MP in Lady Cynthia Mosley, MP for Stoke 1929-31, who died in 1933 aged 34 years, 297 days (or 298 if year she died was a leap year - can someone clarify?)Cloptonson (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the best way to co-ordinate and easily upload the information for the 2014 local elections. Also is there anyway to be able to -co-ordinate a minimum standard for local election articles such as naming conventions e.g. not including all the middle names of candidates and weather or not bold is used to indicate a winning candidate. Sport and politics (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering she is the leader of the second largest party in the Scottish Parliament, our article about her is very short. I've spent some time on it recently adding some information, but there's a lot more to do. Ideally it should be of a similar length and quality to articles about Alex Salmond, Ed Miliband and David Cameron. If anyone can help that would be great. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Article now expanded and at peer review if anyone can help with feedback. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The individual MPs who signed the Vote for Students pledge to oppose tuition fees but reneged on this promise when it came to the actual vote have until recently had this notable fact included in their parliamentary career summary. This is now being removed on the basis, if I understand it correctly, that individual voting records are irrelevant. I strongly oppose this point of view - it is not the voting reord of the individuals but the breaking of the promise that is relevant and goes to the heart of the probity of politics in this country.

The discussion has so far been in private and I would like to solicit views of others on this matter. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This issue was previously discussed | here and absolutely nothing has changed room what I can see since that discussion occurred and the information on the articles is as far as i can see identical to the information which was judged to be completely removed from all individual LD MP articles. As such this is a moot discussion to try and include this POV pushing information. Sport and politics (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion referred to does not address the point (and, as far as I can see, no consensus was reached in it in any case). The point is not that the articles affected are Lib Dem MPs, but that they were the MPs who reneged on the pledge (I accept the point that including this information under those who behaved more honorably and voted as they promised to is probably not undue weight). This reneging on the promise was, and is, of major importance in British politics and of supreme relevance to the individuals concerned. To remove it disturbs the neutrality of the articles. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is a clearly settled area and there is no appetite for this kind of selective inclusion and POV pushing on Wikiepdia. The inclusion is chock full of OR with phrasing such as "behaved more honorably" shows this is being approached in POV way and not in an objective and encyclopaedic way. The opinion used to justify inclusion that this is "major importance in British politics and of supreme relevance" is just that an opinion and its inclusion only on LD MPs is POV pushing. It is only notable in the context of an article on the specific issue of higher education and the corresponding section of tuition fees. Including on every LD MP and only on LD MPs is POV pushing and selective inclusion and Wikiepdia does not tolerate an agenda of POV pushing, which the manner of inclusion of this information is attempting to achieve. This issue is clear cut and settled and it cannot be included in the manner being pushed for inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, they are unhelpful. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Observations and personal attacks are two different things, The above observations are not personal attacks and if you believe that comments have been made which you believe are personal attacks please make your comments on the relevant user's talk page. This page is not for the discussing of those issues as they are not relevant to this discussion page. Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us sort some issues out here.

"The inclusion is chock full of OR" and "it cannot be included in the manner being pushed for inclusion".

Firstly it is not an "inclusion" and it is not being "pushed". The objection is to the removal of long standing factual information without obtaining consensus. Secondly there is no OR in any of those that I have looked at. I confess I haven't been through every one of the relevant articles but the case that brought this to my attention, for example, was Tom Brake where the relevant sentence was:

On 9 December 2010, Brake was one of 28 Liberal Democrat MPs to vote in favour of Government proposals to increase the upper limit on university tuition fees, having previously signed an NUS pledge promising to vote against tuition fee increases.

Plus references. That is about as neutral as it is possible to get - I think it would be slightly improved by exclusion of the words "Liberal Democrat".

"The issue is a clearly settled area".

Indeed. It has been long settled that the item is included in the articles that it is being removed from. Remember that it is yourself making the changes to the status quo (see guidelines on BRD). The previous discussion you cite certainly did not come to an agreement to make that change.

"Including on every LD MP and only on LD MPs is POV pushing".

I have already agreed with you that removal of the information where the individual voted as promised probably makes sense. Beyond that it is only in LD MPs articles simply because only LD MPs were involved - that is not "POV pushing", it is a simple matter of fact.

"an agenda of POV pushing, which the manner of inclusion of this information is attempting to achieve".

There we go with the accusations of "POV pushing" again. I have made my view clear - that the breaking of an explicit and personal promise is extremely relevant to the CV of an MP - as I believe that in this sort of discussion declaration of interest is the only honest way. But that is the limit of my interest. And despite what you claim none of this appears in the articles where there is no 'phrasing such as "behaved more honorably"'; just the facts. This (unlike exclusion) is unbiased and allows the reader to make up their own mind.

There appears to be no consensus for the removal of this information, on this forum at least. And under those circumstances the status quo should be maintained. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is going round in circles, taking up too much time and wil not be resolved. I stand by all the observation and critiques of the content i have made and none of them are personal attacks and claiming anther user is engaging in personal attacks is in itself a personal attack and assumption of bad faith. I have acted in nothing but good faith to attempt to remove unwarranted POV pushing information from Wikipedia and improve Wikipedia. The above contains a lot of inaccuracies such as claiming it is only a LD MP issue whereas it is clearly not. It would only be that if every MP was a LD MP or only LD MPs could vote on the issue. Also MPs from other parties signed this thing not just LD MPs. The inclusion on only LD MP articles is POV pushing against the Liberal Democrats and elevating the issue above other issues which are equally as controversial such as the Health and Social Care Act or the Badger Cull or Shale Gas exploration none of which have any mention and for good reasons WIkiepdia is for notable information only and is not a commentary on individual issues or votes. It is the same reason only very high profile expenses claims are included and not ones which people think should be included because they made an opinion piece in a newspaper. I suggest this is taken to a Third Opinion and they loook at the facts and not the emotional hysteria involved and this issue can once and for all be removed from Wikipedia in its current form, included where appropriate on the relevant page on Higher Education and put to bed. Sport and politics (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no related previous edits on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 4 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Just for the record, this dispute is about these three additions / removals: this at Tom Brake, this at Stephen Lloyd, this at Vince Cable, though the principle may apply to other Liberal Democrat politician articles as well. The material is clearly unacceptable for Wikipedia because it is prohibited synthesis. The No original research (NOR) policy says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. (Emphasis added.) In this case the fact that these politicians have made the pledge — source A — is being combined with the fact that they voted in a manner which would appear to be contrary to that pledge — source B — to imply that they or their party are duplicitous, untrustworthy, promise-breakers, etc.. That's prohibited by the NOR policy. To include information that their votes violated that pledge, since these are living persons subject to the Biographies of living persons policy and since this is contentious material, a high-quality reliable source must be found which actually says that, rather than just imply it from the pledge and their voting record. (There are other policies as well which implicate and potentially prohibit this material in its current form, but this is the most relevant problem.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this as a synthesis as I do not believe the actual fact of the broken pledge is contentious. It is certainly not an original thought. Nevertheless, I do see the point. How about if we refer to Nick Clegg's apology int Telegraph or the FT or the Guardian (where he admits that they broke it) to remove this objection? Bagunceiro (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Could a project member assess this new one for Politics please ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:76.193.170.115 has added, twice, unconstructive material to List of MPs for English constituencies 2010–, once with a fake/misleading edit summary. I have warned them that further such vandalism might lead to their editing rights being restricted or stopped. As they seem to be eager to revert my reversions, I am flagging this up now so we don't end up with a 3RR incident (or worse) doktorb _words^deeds 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The above-named article begins with the assertion: "Baby of the House is the unofficial title given to the youngest member of a parliamentary house. The term is most often applied to members of the British parliament." I can't see any references in the article that support this statement, or that indicate by whom this "title" is supposedly given. For myself, at least as far as the British parliament is concerned, I don't remember seeing or hearing the term used, except perhaps in the most informal of journalism. Yet in the summary lists of offices held by British politicians at the end of their articles, "Baby of the House" is often included (see, for example, Roy Jenkins) as though it had some official status. I don't think that a mere journalistic label is enough to warrant such treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Primary Legislation concerning the meaning of the term "primary legislation". Informed comments would be welcome there. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the best way to co-ordinate and easily upload the information for the 2014 local elections. Also is there anyway to be able to co-ordinate a minimum standard for local election articles such as naming conventions e.g. not including all the middle names of candidates and weather or not bold is used to indicate a winning candidate. Sport and politics (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As a veteran of these sorts of articles, I can answer by going "It's not easy" and "No, there's no co-ordination". The reality has been, over the years, something of a workable mesh of huge detail for some authorities (particularly London and the major cities) and practically nothing for the others (particularly County Councils). What I recommend is following a basic template, which usually includes a summary incorporating all the competing parties and at least a brief run-down of the winning candidates in each ward. I always try to include each ward result in full, and compare the results properly (much to the chagrin of some editors who can't grasp why the results should be compared like-for-like).

The best way to co-ordinate and upload the information is not to do it via Wikipedia in truth ;). I would not go for mass editing on the 23rd May, there will be a lot of editors rushing to fill in the results, and plenty of IP editors trying to put in claims about Party X or Party Z. We're competing with European Parliamentary results too, which won't make things easy. I would suggest picking a region (say, your local region or town) and focusing on getting the summary results up at the very least. There's no time limit, and the fuller results can be added later. doktorb _words^deeds 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of overall article content/layout I agree with doktorb.

I think the specific points that S&P raises is to do with how the Election box templates are populated for individual wards (electoral divisions). I know she has been doing a lot of good work trying to standardise these, and we could do with getting some consensus as to what the "standard" should be. If we look across the various election pages for local councils we see that editors vary between using the full names of candidates (with middle names), as they appear on the electoral returns or council website or not; and possibly using the Template:Election box winning candidate with party link to bold the elected candidate(s) or not. For the names, I now personally prefer to use full names as we can't be fully sure whether the names in the middle are actually Middle names or are parts of non-hyphenated surnames, such as the case with Ralph Vaughan Williams (I think perhaps non-hyphenated first names may exist as well). So as the elections returns, or information on the council website are the only accurate and verifiable way of determining the correct name of a candidate that would probably not be mentioned by another source, due to the fact that they are standing for the lowest tier of government, I think it best to leave the names in full.

I also think that the Template:Election box winning candidate with party link template should be used for councils that have multi-member electoral wards, as it makes it a lot easier to identify how many candidates could be elected and which ones were. And where the multi-member wards form the majority of the wards then this should be applied to all wards in that council election article for consistency, but if they form the minority then it should only be applied to those multi-member wards themselves.

It would be good if we can come up with some sort of wider discussion and form a consensus here and perhaps write a draft guideline so that in future everyone can work to the same format for local council elections. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re the specific points of bolding and middle names, I'm beginning to agree with User:Sport and politics on the first point and coming round to the opinion that bolding isn't really needed for winning candidates, even in multi-member wards/divisions as the gain, hold or win box at the bottom of the result makes that clear enough (for me at least).

For the second point I also prefer to use full names - I agree with User:Zangar here that candidates aren't generally notable enough to have widespread coverage in other sources and as such the only verifiable source of their name is the Statement of Persons Nominated and official council results, for which full names are often used by the candidate. And we often don't know if the extra names are (to use current MPs as an example) part of a non-hyphenated surname (Iain Duncan Smith), or a non-hyphenated first name (Anne Marie Morris), or if the candidate is most commonly known by all their names (Susan Elan Jones) or just by one of their middle names alone (James Gordon Brown).

A project guideline specific to local elections that sets out a common format would be useful - there have been quite a few different "standard" practices in use recently. Pilchard (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree on bolding in multi-member wards. It makes it much easier to read the result at a glance, especially if the result is split. Some of the wards in boroughs around me have a history of running mates getting very different results and/or some parties not fielding full slates which can make the results confusing.

This also brings up the thorny question of how to determine party percentages within a multi-member ward, and in turn how to generate authority wide figures when there are so many different methods. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly User:JHunterJ is moving constituency articles without consultation, creating a mess in his wake. I cannot revert what is now Nottingham South to where it should be at Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency), so if that can be done by anybody here, please do so. We cannot have inconsistency in this project. doktorb _words^deeds 18:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, User:Doktorbuk ignored the earlier consultation at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style#Article name from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Local consensus on naming conventions contradicts the broader consensus on article titles, to correct the WP:LOCALCONSEUS contrary to WP:PRECISION. Consistency with WP:PRECISION can indeed be had in this project, just like in all the other projects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But can't you see that the disambiguation has not been used in this way for a reason? I implore you to see sense and revert your move. The ensuing redirect mess is not worth the bother. doktorb _words^deeds 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done the only thing available to me to partly revert User:JHunterJ. We must have consistency. doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, try to restrict this discussion to one talk page. --RFBailey (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do short titles of UK Acts of Parliament include the definite article? Please discuss at Talk:Crime and Disorder Act 1998#Short title and page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Advertising the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) here, as specified in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines.

This is exactly the issue raised above in #Warning - seat moves: following an impasse in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies this seems the way forward. PamD 13:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that covers the names of candidates on election pages? Please see Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Full names. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox government cabinet has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox cabinet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not my area, but I came across this Dods guide to No10 which may be useful to someone - it has charts of the lines of responsibility of those who work there, some descriptions of them etc. Le Deluge (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just started a new article on Disappeared (Northern Ireland), which might be of interest to this WikiProject. GiantSnowman 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion for moving "History of the socialist movement in X" to "Socialism in X" , X = USA, Brazil, Canada, UK.

Please refer to WP:ARTICLETITLE and ancillary policies & guidelines.

All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown in which some project members might be interested. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Please direct your attention to Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29, where the question is whether the make of Ian Gow's car (the one he got blown up in) is relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. There's an ongoing dispute, going on for over three years, and an RfC (that is, you) might could help settle that. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick thing when linking into Tamworth (the town and borough council in Staffordshire) please could you use [[Tamworth (bourgh)]] for the Borough Election results, cheers. C. 22468 Talk to me 10:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:UK MPs 2010– stubs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted, but the current contents are:

Thomas Docherty (politician) Julie Elliott Bill Esterson Pat Glass Mary Glindon Rebecca Harris Dai Havard Gareth Johnson Shabana Mahmood Michael McCann (politician) Ian Mearns Fiona O'Donnell Bridget Phillipson Julian Smith (politician) Mel Stride David Watts (politician) Chris White (politician) David Wright (politician)

Feel free to do anything useful with this list. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the project page on meta. It is hoped that the response to his questions will be answered collaboratively, similar to the way Wikipedia articles (and policies) are written. At the end of the process, the idea of using a wiki-approach to parliamentary policy and evidence will be reviewed. So if you want it to go well, you could consider helping out: Connecting knowledge to power: the future of digital democracy in the UK. Please pass this link on to anyone you might think is interested. Mark M (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I invite WikiProject members to come over to Talk:Directly_elected_mayor_of_Tower_Hamlets#A_gain_that_isn.27t_a_gain to discuss how to represent an election result where the incumbent wins re-election but under a new label? User:Sport and politics felt there was a broader issue at play. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Could editors please contribute to RfC: Should the first sentence of the lead mention that Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom? TFD (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)